Any sort of "Man on the street interview" reporting is useless except for laughs. Talk to X many people, pick the answers that best fit your narrative and make a "story" out of them.

What? You're saying that the 5 people who couldn't locate the US on a globe aren't indicative of college age citizens? I'm shocked!

Just like polls that show most of the US is in favor of SSM, even though the states aren't implementing SSM when there is nothing preventing the states from implementing it...

I think we'll see tomorrow, won't we? We'll also likely see the first time a popular vote has stopped one of these silly constitutional amendments from passing the electorate. Happy days are ahead, oh my! How many years until it's legal everywhere here? Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...OH LAWDY, MY PEARLS! IMMA CLUTCHIN' EM SO TIGHT!

I think we'll see tomorrow, won't we? We'll also likely see the first time a popular vote has stopped one of these silly constitutional amendments from passing the electorate.

You're talking about Minnesota? Probably wont pass. As pointed out, polling on SSM very very consistently leads actual support for SSM legislation by about 7 points. Lots of reasons why, but that's the gist of it. Never know though. But that would be one case of support in one state compared to somewhere around 30 cases of the opposite in other states. I suppose you take any indicator you can get though.

Quote:

Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...

Well gee. When you put it in such unbiased terms, it's "obvious" how people should go. And folks wonder why the polls are so skewed on this issue.

I think we'll see tomorrow, won't we? We'll also likely see the first time a popular vote has stopped one of these silly constitutional amendments from passing the electorate.

You're talking about Minnesota? Probably wont pass. As pointed out, polling on SSM very very consistently leads actual support for SSM legislation by about 7 points. Lots of reasons why, but that's the gist of it. Never know though. But that would be one case of support in one state compared to somewhere around 30 cases of the opposite in other states. I suppose you take any indicator you can get though.

Quote:

Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...

Well gee. When you put it in such unbiased terms, it's "obvious" how people should go. And folks wonder why the polls are so skewed on this issue.

Edited, Nov 5th 2012 6:46pm by gbaji

But you see, the polls aren't skewed on this. They've been making a very strong push towards acceptance, or at the very least ambivalence. This issue really is on its way to sorting itself out.

Just about time for people to decide and place themselves on the right side of history or be seen in the same light as the kooks who are against things like interracial coupling...

Well gee. When you put it in such unbiased terms, it's "obvious" how people should go. And folks wonder why the polls are so skewed on this issue.

But you see, the polls aren't skewed on this.

Yes, they are. They're skewed precisely because of the language used to describe the issue in principle versus how any given piece of legislation is viewed in actual fact. There's a huge difference between "do you support the rights of same *** people to marry?" and "do you support this particular legislation in front of you?". On contentious social issues, especially ones where those on one side are portrayed as somehow violating some groups rights, you will get a higher percentage of people who will poll on the side labeled as being in favor of some groups "rights" than you will get to vote the same way. There's a whole host of studies about this explaining why this happens if you really want to understand it, but it's silly to deny that it happens.

Ask people if they think we should allow anyone to starve to death on the streets, and you'll get about 100% agreement that we shouldn't. Try to pass a specific piece of legislation claiming to help prevent people from starving on the streets though.

Quote:

They've been making a very strong push towards acceptance, or at the very least ambivalence. This issue really is on its way to sorting itself out.

Sure. I'm just saying that it's not as cut and dried as some make it out to be. It's like asking someone "do you agree with civil rights?". Of course they do! Go into details of all the proposals made in the name of civil rights legislation though, and you'll get a different answer. The real world doesn't always fit into a simple "for/against" poll regarding very broad aspects of an issue. In fact, I'd argue that it very rarely does.

#756Almalieque,
Posted:Nov 06 2012 at 6:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The polls are skewed, because if they were accurate, it would be done already, not "on it's way to sorting itself out".

#759Almalieque,
Posted:Nov 06 2012 at 4:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's exactly what happened with DADT. No where in the survey did they ask if you wanted DADT appealed. All of their questions were biased in both directions on your feeling of homosexuality in general, but not if you approved or disapproved homosexuals serving openly in the military.

They're skewed precisely because of the language used to describe the issue in principle versus how any given piece of legislation is viewed in actual fact.

Yes. It's the language which is doing it. Not a shift in social mores.

Those lawyer folk and their twisty devil language be ruining america for all them honest Christians.

Why can't it be both?

Obviously there's a change in demographics, as I believe is a good thing. But, to act like there isn't any form of deception in questioning is delusional. That's not to say that it's a set up from the Man, but you should be more realistic with yourself. We just ended months of fallacious political ads, attacks, statements, etc., so to believe that people always take the "high road" when attempting to get what they want is self-denial.

The argument is that neither polling or elections accurately reflect the views of the people being polled or doing the voting.

Edited, Nov 8th 2012 8:32pm by catwho

The argument is in three points.

The first point is that polling isn't a mathematical proof for a conclusion, because there is a difference between statistics and mathematics. Statistics use mathematics, but it doesn't make it a mathematical proof.

The second point is that what you're polling and how you're polling makes a difference. The reason why people can be accurate in political polls years in a row is because of trends. The bible belt will always vote Republican. That's not math, that's statistics. I could of guessed the same states that won Red and Blue from the last election and would have gotten over half of them right without doing any extra work. Polls on trends can get by with a smaller sample size because there's no need to poll Red or Blue states, just the swing states. Even at that point, they break it further down into counties. However, polling the nation on their opinion on something that is heavily divided will never mathematically guarantee results with the same sample size.

The third point is that political polls are snapshots at that day and time that could change immediately upon their release. Unless people will change their behavior based on the political polls, they serve no purpose to people outside of the campaign other than to fulfill their curiosity. Other forms of statistics actually have an effect on society. Given the fact that people will still hold onto "hope" or their belief until election night, there is no value in it for non campaigners.

But.... all the polls were right. Nate Silver called every state just about dead on.

Math is math. Know enough about math and you can conjure money out of pieces of mortgage paper. Know enough about math and you can correctly predict the outcome of an election.

It's just math, not rocket science.

First of all, all of the polls were not right on. I've been posting links to show the contrary and if you watched Fox News, they were obviously off.

HTF do you people not realize the difference between Statistics and a mathematical proof? I could have said "No change from 2008" and would have been 49/51 (if I'm not mistaken). That's not a mathematical PROOF, that's called statistics.

Using math IS NOT THE same as creating a mathematical proof. There is no mathematical proof to determine the results of a poll. He used statistics! I'm truly sorry if you fail to see the fundamental difference and how they are related.

The first point is that polling isn't a mathematical proof for a conclusion, because there is a difference between statistics and mathematics. Statistics use mathematics, but it doesn't make it a mathematical proof.

The difference between a mathematical proof and a statistical correlation is lost on most scientists I work with, much less anyone else. You're probably not going to make any headway with this.

Almalieque wrote:

However, polling the nation on their opinion on something that is heavily divided will never mathematically guarantee results with the same sample size.

Well if you make the assumption your poll is an accurate reflection of reality you have a margin of error, you don't seem to be making that assumption though.

In my field at least, an algorithm is usually tested and trained on old data, then used to predict results. If the predicted and actual results vary too much going forward, the algorithm is refined and the process repeats. Likewise one poll matching election results more closely suggests that its algorithm is more likely working properly at this time, and doesn't need tweaking. Realistically any poll that has the results within its margin of error is doing a fine job. If this isn't the case, the poll is more likely to be making a fundamental error in its assumptions, and should be looked at more carefully.

Almalieque wrote:

The third point is that political polls are snapshots at that day and time that could change immediately upon their release.

This is where I'd point to gbaji's previous post about watching the trends over a period of time. Of course there's no guarantee things won't change drastically going forward, but there some solace to be found in the fact it usually doesn't.

#786Almalieque,
Posted:Nov 09 2012 at 11:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, you're absolutely right. What I left off was due to a catalyst. People for Romney isn't likely to just change over night; but if he were caught in *** scandal, I'm sure that he would have lost the majority of the "swing votes". The fact that those snapshots typically wont change is how you are able to predict a state in the first place. There is no reason to believe that Washington DC would vote for Romney or Georgia vote for Obama. So, instead of using hours polling those places, you can focus on the swing states down to the city/county level. That's how you get your accuracy.

However, if you were to ask "Do you support abortion" or any other hot topic that is so heavily divided, it becomes increasingly more difficult to be that accurate with the same amount of numbers due to the increased weight of other factors such as the demographics, how the question was worded, how the people were contacted cell vs email vs land line, time of day of the contact, etc. It's not impossible, but it becomes much more about being attentive to details at that point.

Absolutely. You reach a point where there are too many factors to accurately model in a complex environment such as the real world. Nearly every algorithm from mass spectra alignment software, to climate prediction software, to market analysis, to election polling all suffer from this same flaw. In the end you're never going to be able to get a perfect approximation of reality.

So what do you do? Well, you make assumptions, you simplify, condense and ignore certain variables you think will have a minor affect, or that you don't have data on, etc.

In a laboratory setting this would be something like removing (or I suppose simply not adding?) part of an equation, varying a parameter, or changing its weighting through a range of reasonable values and observing how the accuracy of your algorithm changed. For polling I'd reiterate what I said above, the more closely the results match the predicted ones, the less likely it is the poll needs to be altered. Assuming you've been testing the methods on previous data as well of course. Also, throwing out that the more complex algorithm (the one with more values for more more possible factors) is not necessarily the more accurate one. People tend to ***** up more complicated things, and some factors may be best ignored if they prove difficult to model accurately.

In a laboratory setting this would be something like removing (or I suppose simply not adding?) part of an equation, varying a parameter, or changing its weighting through a range of reasonable values and observing how the accuracy of your algorithm changed. For polling I'd reiterate what I said above, the more closely the results match the predicted ones, the less likely it is the poll needs to be altered. Assuming you've been testing the methods on previous data as well of course. Also, throwing out that the more complex algorithm (the one with more values for more more possible factors) is not necessarily the more accurate one. People tend to ***** up more complicated things, and some factors may be best ignored if they prove difficult to model accurately.

That was what I was referring to when people are given poll results that they don't agree with, they tend to find "errors" or "bias" in the polling, i.e. "democrat/republican heavy".

Anyway, I'd say lets get back on topic, but I have no idea what the heck we were talking about in the first place. Still trying to figure out how a thread on *** terrorists got derailed into one about polling statistics.

Seriously people, you have done enough! Have you no sense of decency!!?

Just as I was going to complain about never being apart of these polls, I got two calls from the Gallop poll, but wasn't able to participate because of driving and being in a meeting. They said that they will call back. I can't wait to have my views represent millions of the nation!

You answered your phone while driving and again later, while in a meeting?

Never done that? It's like unzipping your fly and going around the table, smacking everyone in the face with your ****, only legal, faster and slightly less impolite.

I've done both, but never used them as the excuse as to why I can't continue to talk. If I answered the phone, I had time to talk. If I didn't answer, it's because I didn't have time.

The Gallop said that they couldn't talk to me while I was driving. I was thinking your rational, "If I answered the phone then I am able to talk to you'. I assume that they don't want to be linked to a vehicular accident.

For the meeting, I had time to talk, just only about 2 minutes. I had time to answer or hear some statements, but not enough time to complete a survey.